FT: “Democracies are ill-suited to deal with climate change”

The Chinese system of government is frequently praised by greens for its ability to disregard short term hardship, and focus on long term climate goals. Published by The Associated Press, originally photographed by Jeff Widener, Fair use, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Another green attack on Democracy; According to the Financial Times, giving ordinary people a say over public policy impedes climate action, because we don’t care enough about other people’s problems.

Democracies are ill-suited to deal with climate change

It is tempting to say the problem is too abstract but the focus should be on the economy

Harrowing images of Australian bushfires and Californian wildfires should be blowing a hole in such complacency. But they also crystallise how hard it is for democracies to mobilise public action. If images of Sydney enshrouded in smoke, or Napa Valley in flames, cannot arouse the voter’s imagination, what will? Those hoping the world’s wealthiest countries will take more of a lead on climate change must confront three hard truths.

The first is that politicians struggle to look beyond the electoral cycle. It is hard enough for a government to invest in education, which can take years to show results. It is that much more difficult to take unpopular actions to reduce carbon dioxide output that might take generations to bear fruit, and even then go unrecognised.

…

The second obstacle to climate change action is uncertainty. It is impossible to establish that any single disaster is entirely man-made. Despite the summer fires in Siberia, heat deaths in Pakistan and two once-in-a-century storms hitting Houston in two years, natural disasters occurred before the era of climate change. …

…

The third obstacle is — how to put it? — human nature. … I have spoken to people who are more exercised by Greta Thunberg’s mannerisms than with the content of her message. They find the fact that a 17-year-old girl is lecturing grown-ups on climate change more grating than the likely extinction of the Great Barrier Reef. We filter what we want to see.

I’m glad a climate action advocate has finally gotten the message the Greta effect only works on people who already believe. When this message filters through to the top, we might see less of her.

Sadly Edward does not go on enlighten us about his version of the ideal eco-fascist utopia which should replace our current freedoms. His feeble suggestion, “to talk about the economy”, undermines his position that Democracies are not well suited to dealing with long term problems.

If people can be persuaded to take climate action by talking about the economy, surely this means Democracy works?

120 thoughts on “FT: “Democracies are ill-suited to deal with climate change””

Imagine if we had terminated democracy 20yrs ago. They would have tufted the planet with windmills like cloves in an old fashioned ham, putting economic engine countries into bankruptcy. They’d herald the natural cooling of the hiatus and redution of “expected” warming by 3/4 and Hansen would get a Nobel prize because the Westside Highway didnt get inundated by global warming. Then, my friends we’d be stuck with a disneyworld fantasy climate theory that had been unequivocally proved. Dang that obstructive democracy!

Actually no, the goal is to bankrupt the middle and working classes of the rich and powerful countries, and place MORE wealth and power into the hands of the already rich and powerful political classes.

It is not only the alarmists who have scary scenarios. What can happen in a world without fossile fuel is extremely scary, and maybe we should paint the picture clearly! Here is one attempt:
I have a dream. It is so cold. I have hardly slept during the night. Even with all the blankets in the house, I haven’t been able to keep warm enough to sleep.

By old habit I try to switch on the light. Of course, there is no light. We are scheduled to have electricity only between 11 and twelve o clock today, and then only 400 w.

What will I use it for today. Internet maybe. No, not really any purpose. Very few use their rasjon of electricity for the internet, so it is almost dead. No discussion forums, no contact with friends or relatives. I think with nostalgia of the time when we could afford the luxury of sending pictures of the grandkids to each other. We could even send something called videos. Now nobody have enough electricity or bandwidth to send videos. I hope the wind will blow today, just a little bit. Then maybe they will give us 2 hours of electricity. The sun is too low in the winter to produce anything from the solar panels.

I go outside to see if I have any food left on the veranda. I find a frozen bread. We cannot use the fridge of course. I am so hungry, think reflexively that I can thaw it in the microwave. Well, that would have been a luxury. Hadn’t used that one for several years. With an hour of electricity pr day, there was no way I was going to use my meagre 400w for the microwave. I will have to go into the wood to hopefully find some branches that are dry enough to make a fire so I can thaw the bread.

Bread is all we have now. No import of fruits or vegetables, and nothing will grow here in the winter. There are no food shops any more. They have nothing to sell since diesel trucks have been outlawed and trains have also stopped since they needed electricity. Nobody can use wind and solar to power the trains. Most of the local windmills have broken down too, and since trains or other transport has stopped because of lack of electricity, they cannot not be repaired. No spare parts can be transported , no technicians can get to the site, no cranes can lift parts. No factories have power enough to produce steel for blades. Same thing with solar panels. I had heard rumors that they were still produced in China, but nobody in my country has the means to transport or maintain them since there is no possibility of transport.

Anyway, there are no technicians anymore. Trying to stay alive, get som food for the family and some firewood takes the whole day for most people. The winters are not really colder, but it still seems like I will not survive. I have not even been able to bury my dead child. The ground is frozen, I will have to wait until spring. Anna died from a simple infection. There were no doctors. They were also searching for firewood to keep warm. Well, she would stay frozen until spring anyway.

Maybe I should eat her like som of the neighbors have done with their own kids. I have actually heard of some others hoping that at least one of the kids would die so the they would have some food for the rest. Some have even got the religious beliefs that it is right to sacrifice one so the others could eat. Anyway, there are no hospitals anymore so most babies die at birth. I you are lucky the mother would die too and then you would have meat for the whole winter…

A highly credible gentleman wrote me as follows, concerning his recent conversation with an Ottawa insider.

The insider, he said, had been working on an advisory group to the Trudeau government. The group was not formed to discuss policy for the 5 year horizon that governments are usually interested in but to develop policies for the further future, 20 to 40 years out. The implication was that the group had concluded that the present economic model was flawed and had to be replaced. “Unregulated consumerism was unsustainable and people would have to learn to make do with less. The government would have to have more control over people to enforce their austerity and the wealth of developed nations would have to be redistributed to help undeveloped nations.”

These are not new ideas. For decades, intellectuals and politicians have argued that our consumer society, based on individual market demand, is a flawed system that generates waste, excess and environmental degradation.

The insider’s assessment also reflects the current underlying motivation behind the rise of climate change as the defining issue of our time. The words reflect the motives of environmentalists and climate activists who are using the climate “emergency” as a front for larger political and ideological ambitions. What they are pursuing as an economic revolution ushered in through the back door. They are yelling fire and then using the resultant fear to impose a new economic and political order.

In a recent Washington Post report, one of the leading players in the rise of New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal let the cat out of the bag. Saikat Chakrabarti, chief of staff for Ocasio-Cortez, said: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… Do you guys think of it as a climate thing? Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Naomi Klein, in her new flamethrower, “On Fire, The Burning Case for a Green New Deal”, also makes it clear that the climate is a “powerful motivator” to overthrow capitalism. “The idea is a simple one: In the process of transforming the infrastructure of our societies at the speed and scale that scientists have called for, humanity has a once-in-a- century chance to fix an economic model that is failing the majority of people on multiple fronts. … Challenging these underlying forces is an opportunity to solve several interlocking crises at once.”

The clear intent is to use the global warming smokescreen to restrict economic and political freedoms by transforming Western countries into tightly controlled totalitarian states.

For decades, intellectuals and politicians have argued that our consumer society, based on individual market demand, is a flawed system that generates waste, excess and environmental degradation.

The general argument is not without merit. Industrial pollution was huge until the legislative moves of the 60s and 70s put limits on it. The capitalist system was flexible and responsive enough to adapt and our living environment improved drastically.

Now however, it is the fake environmentalists who are creating waste by trying to make us change everything we buy for a new “greener” model before they have served even half their useful life.

Democracies add “damping” to the system. They add a lot of “social inertia” ad as such are far more stable.
“Undamped” systems fluctuate wildly and are often slewing wildly into divergent destructive feed-back from every external disturbance and are unstable when quiescent.
It is a rare occurrence in the history of mankind that we have ever experienced stable dictatorships as dictators are rarely stable individuals. Their administrations dance like spastic marionettes to every whim of the puppeteer.

These folks are certifiable. The CA/AU fires were/are demonstrably caused by top-down one-size-fits-all central planning and ineptitude. Let’s turn the whole economy over to them. Yeah!, that’s the ticket. Everything the government touches turns to crap.

The Chinese system of government is frequently praised by greens for its ability to disregard short term hardship, and focus on long term climate goals. Published by The Associated Press, originally photographed by Jeff Widener

Hmmm…
Short term hardship…
Like the hardship of building and powering vast unpopulated cities and electrifying them to boost their “Early Peak CO2” promise?
Or is it the hardship of promising to continue to expand their CO2 emissions while other equally developed countries are required to reduce emissions?
Or perhaps it is the hardship of raping their land and fouling their rivers to produce “Cheap unreliable solar panels” and “Wind Turbines” that last less than 10 years before breaking down?
Long term climate goals…
Perhaps the goal of changing the political climate?

In democracies there is always sizeable proportion of population disagrees with democratically elected governments decisions, e.g. current brouhaha over a drone and a terrorist.
Not often happens but here you can see another chase in a very hot place.http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/D&T.gif
the image was taken by NASA satellite today at 1900 GMT /sarc

The FT writer gives the game away in his own words. Our arguments are unconvincing therefore we can’t have a debate. Especially liked the fudge that their success may be unrecognized. Believe that’s what the Temple Priests were angling at when things they predicted did not happen. Sad pathetic drivel and these people want power. Not if we can help it.

It’s all about abolishing capitalism and replacing it with what … Marxism. We all know how well that works in practice.

If you’re going to declare war (say, on capitalism) you need an excuse the people will support. That reason is called the casus belli.

In August 1939, to implement the first phase of this policy, Germany’s Nazi government under Hitler’s leadership staged the Gleiwitz incident, which was used as a casus belli for the invasion of Poland the following September.

In this case, global warming is the casus belli. It’s intended to herd a terrified public into something like a really stupid war.

“In this case, global warming is the casus belli. It’s intended to herd a terrified public into something like a really stupid war.”

As I recall the standard refrain is that it’s too late to think about it, we must panic and do as we’re told by our betters. Per St. Greta (‘s handlers).

They keep on about how we need to destroy capitalism, neglecting to get into the details of what sort of government we’d have after that. Never mind that the government required to
” destroy capitalism” will be the kind that murders vast numbers of it’s own population to achieve utopia for the enlightened.

The agenda of the extreme leftists who have taken over the Democratic party is clear – it is the KGB’s 4-stage program:

1. Demoralize the populace with constant carping about trivial problems – ignore the reality that we live in the most peaceful, prosperous time in Earth’s history.

2. De-stabilize the country with extremist politics and destructive, uneconomic government policies.

3. Create a crisis – the global warming /climate change false crisis is the Left’s tactic to mobilize a gullible public to support their extremist political agenda.

4. Normalize –announce the need for a leftist dictatorship to control the false crisis, disarm and jail or execute those who oppose this coup d’état, destroy the economy with costly, destructive green energy policies and welcome your country into the new economic reality of Venezuela and Zimbabwe. If the above scenario sounds improbable, look around – most of the countries in the world already fit this description.

4a. Rule like wealthy kings, absolute monarchs looking down on all the peasants.
_______________________________

KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov’s warning to America (recorded in 1984):
This is 16-minute excerpt from Bezmenov’s longer interview, which was recently banned by YouTube as “hate speech”, aka “the truth about the totalitarian agenda of the left.”https://youtu.be/bX3EZCVj2XA
– Allan MacRae

Couple Bezmenov’s explanation of the KGB 4 stage program: 1. demoralize, 2. destabilize, 3. create a crisis and 4. ‘normalize’ i.e. send in the troops and seize power with Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (1971) and you have a pretty good road map of how we got here from there.
– Mike Macray

The Bezmenov interview dates back to the time of President Reagan. The USSR has collapsed since then. Since the publication of The Gulag Archipelago everyone realizes just how bad Marxism was. We still have the SJWs and postmodernists pushing it, but its credibility is shot.

It’s true that academia is a cesspool. The good thing is that, because of ruinous student debt, people are beginning to think university is a bad deal. example That means more kids will opt for skills based training in community colleges. That means fewer people will be indoctrinated.

Do we have a Marxist/communist example where the focus was on “protecting” the environment? …I didn’t think so. Totalitarian regimes are only interested in their power and control. How is the clean air in China these days? The Soviets made eastern Europe a garden spot, right?..NOT!

As part of this discussion a comment over at CTH included the following lecture by Andrew Breitbart describing the communist take over in process in the USA. Although a bit long it is a very detailed history of the movement to subvert our entire society. Rather frightening. Two 30 minute talks. A bit long but worth the time. Not directly related to weather or climate but certainly a major element (perhaps the core) of the so-called Green movement. I really don’t know how to reverse this destruction other than making as many people aware of it as possible.

Spot on Craig. We (speaking of those in the US) are a republic. Though the left keeps trying to eliminate the republican nature of our government by making it “more democratic” (see the push to eliminate the electoral college, to make the Senate more like the house in regards to distribution of senators by population instead of by state, etc.). It’s easier to get a tyranny of the majority in a true democracy, and from there to establish their global totalitarian government dreams.

In a sense, the FT is right, Stalin would have had all the AGW nutters rounded up and either shot or sent to a gulag in Siberia, whereas we have to tolerate their deranged fear mongering and violent wet dream fantasies ( think 10:10 ).

The author thinks authoritarian rule would be better than democracy in implementing something like a Green New Deal, whereas, as you point out, authoritarian rule might end up producing a Stalin who instead of implementing a Green New Deal, will round up its proponents and slap them all in the Gulag or worse, for being troublemakers.

Nah, first Stalin would have used the “climate crisis” to take away more of the people’s freedom and money. Then, after assuring that he didn’t “waste a good crisis,” he’d send them to the Gulag to prevent them from being a threat.

The climate is changing and is appearing to be warming .
CO2 is also increasing .
Some scientists and lots of politicians say CO2 is the cause and must be taxed .
Very difficult to disprove a theory that makes so much money .

If there is a scientific case for a climate emergency, then sit down with us and prove it to us.

If they had done that…proved their case, a Free Democracy would have been the very best platform from which to launch remediation…with enthusiasm and innovation and sacrifice motivated by self preservation.

Instead, the Climate Alarmists have used Media Propaganda and Political Force instead of logic and persuasion. They did not do it the right way because they can’t.

Plus, their plans to solve the “problem” do not even come remotely close to solving the stated problem. It does wipe out Free Enterprise and that only stiffens our certainties and resolve.

Ways to Get some Political Momentum:
1.) A Convincing Electoral victory in 2020.
2.) Build a free press and ridicule the old MSM at every instance. They must be discredited…and recent polls are encouraging.
3.) Break up Big Social Media and work to destroy Google and Facebook…Twitter will die on its own.
4.) Defund any public University that hampers free speech immediately (that is supposed to be happening now). And defund any that do not progress toward a political balance in Adminstration and Professorships.
5.) Push California out of the Union (or at least keep them politically isolated)…so we can observe their self destruction…as a lab experiment. [ NOTE: Their open borders might give them 100 more House Seats if not expelled. ]
6.) Conduct a valid “official” secret poll of all US Climate Related Scientists regarding their true level of concern about the climate threat in some detail. Political affiliation would be on the questionnaire.
7.) Defund any Climate Research that fails to openly comply with normal Scientific Procedures. Personnel dismissals would be subject to legal and administrative oversight. (I don’t like red tape, but these conspirators are using our monies against us…and blacklisting good scientists)
8.) Prey for a slow global cooling trend that won’t trigger more extreme weather.

The most recent era of extreme climate change was during the last glacial termination, roughly from 19,000 to 8000 years ago. Most of ice sheet melting occurred in a brief few thousand years, as the process was interrupted by cold snaps such as the Younger Dryas, caused by fresh meltwater lenses on the oceans.

Nothing in the past 8000 years of the Holocene interglacial can come close to matching the pace of climate change during those intervals, during which sea level rose by some 400 feet.

The Chinese system of government is frequently praised by greens for its ability to disregard short term hardship, and focus on long term climate goals.

Not clear Eric if that is your summary or the original caption on the AP photo, but either way it is a correct observation of Green thinking.
However that opinion makes no sense.
How are the China (and India) disregarding short term hardship and focusing on long term goals?

They are on record and very vocal that they intend to use fossil fuels until they catch up with the west and their stated longer term goal is to consider leveling off in 2030.

Their real long term goal is economic dominance over the West, and being a supplier of “renewable” equipment fits right in. Meanwhile their contribution to global CO2 emissions will dwarf the rest of the world’s. What’s your plan for that Mr. Luce?

It is easy to see what FT means about “economics”. The good Mr. Luce was Larry Summers speechwriter during the Clinton Admin, and Larry who became Obama’s top economic advisor.
So Mr. Summers, a financial derivative aficionado, made sure Glass-Steagall was repealed, and the bailouts under Obama went ahead.
Not difficult at all to see what Mr. Luce means about “economics”.
Let’s talk about derivatives, FDR’s Glass-Steagall, shall we?
FT , the Economist, & Co, are for sure having a major panic attack, that President Trump, who campaigned to restore Glass-Steagall, bank separation, will look really hard at that again, as London’s financial system again implodes. Pres. Trump has effectively made any kind of GND or green-currency wild-eyed plans moot.

Now put the impeachment charade in context – FT trembles at the thought it is a damp squib.

Repealing G-S by itself wouldn’t have caused the financial crisis ten years later. That required the Democrats’ subprime slime, insisted on in order to go alone with G-S repeal.

Then Clinton’s treasury secretary promptly returned to Wall Street investment banking in order to cash in one the new looseness, abandoning sound lending practices.

Bush was blamed in 2008, but his only contribution to the Great Recession was shifting 500 federal bank examiners to counter-terror jobs after 9/11, without Congress’ replacing them. In fact, his first treasury secretary tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie, but of course Democrat Senate and House banking czars Dodd and Frank were having none of that. The latter’s live-in BF was being handsomely rewarded at Fannie (!). The blatant conflict of interest was SOP in the Swamp.

G-S would deal with the bailout quite differently. Let the casino operations go, keep the banks open for normal business. As some say Lehman was not even a bank.
With G-S in force the derivative casino could not run wild with leveraged Federally insured deposits as a guarantor. It kind of takes the wind out of the sails. Proprietary paper stays just that.

Then real physical economic investment becomes relatively safe.
Generating massive credit for crash-programs (not Milton Friedman helicopter money we see today) will not get lost in the casino.
And that is the way to get fusion going, and explains the delay.

That’s a touch naive, James. They think communism is so wonderful they want everyone to have it. At least so long as they are the ones in charge. I mean, someone has to be in charge don’t they? And who better than them?

What he really means is “Democracy is ill-suited to cramming unpopular, economically ruinous, and completely stupid and unnecessary policies down the throat of the governed.”

In point of fact, considering that “climate change” is in reality natural and NOT in the control of humans, and that the only thing that humans are able to do about “climate change” is therefore called ADAPTATION, democracy, in particular, capitalistic democracy, is the best suited to deal with ACTUAL “climate change,” since those societies with the greatest wealth are the most able to adapt.

“It is tempting to say the problem is too abstract but the focus should be on the economy”

No, it is ACCURATE to say the “problem” is completely hypothetical, and that in reality there is nothing to worry about.

EDWARD LUCE

…

“Harrowing images of Australian bushfires and Californian wildfires should be blowing a hole in such complacency.”

No they shouldn’t – because Australian bushfires and California wildfires are NORMAL and EXPECTED. They have nothing to do with so-called “climate change” at all.

But they also crystallise how hard it is for democracies to mobilise public action.

If there were an ACTUAL PROBLEM, you would find democracies quite easy to “mobilize” into “action.” See Hitler and Tojo.

“If images of Sydney enshrouded in smoke, or Napa Valley in flames, cannot arouse the voter’s imagination, what will?”

Images of Sydney enshrouded in smoke and Napa Valley in flames HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SO-CALLED “CLIMATE CHANGE,” so the voter’s “imagination” is not “aroused” by them. For “arousal” of “imagination,” voters can go see monster movies – but that won’t get them to commit economic suicide either.

“Those hoping the world’s wealthiest countries will take more of a lead on climate change must confront three hard truths.”

No, they need to face a single reality. The “climate change” bullshit story is being rejected. Too many are capable of rational thought.

“The first is that politicians struggle to look beyond the electoral cycle. It is hard enough for a government to invest in education, which can take years to show results. It is that much more difficult to take unpopular actions to reduce carbon dioxide output that might take generations to bear fruit, and even then go unrecognised.”

No, it is impossible to support unnecessary and economically ruinous actions that are based on non-solutions to a hypothetical issue that is in reality a non-problem. You might as well be talking about the inability of getting politicians to “take action” to stop the “trend” of rising water measured over a period of hours as the tides come in, because that is the perfect analogy for measuring the temperature increase from an extremely cold period, the Little Ice Age, to a relatively warm period, all of which are occurring in the background of what is essentially an ice age which has seen each such warm period be LESS warm than past warm periods during that same ice age, and assume the “trend” is permanent or meaningful – and that “we” are suddenly in control of ANY of it.

…

“The second obstacle to climate change action is uncertainty. It is impossible to establish that any single disaster is entirely man-made. Despite the summer fires in Siberia, heat deaths in Pakistan and two once-in-a-century storms hitting Houston in two years, natural disasters occurred before the era of climate change. …”

It is impossible to establish that human CO2 emissions have contributed meaningfully to the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels; it is impossible to establish that atmospheric CO2 levels have had ANY effect on the Earth’s temperature whatsoever; it is impossible to establish ANY connection between ANY particular “disaster” and changes to the climate from ANY source, and the IPCC’s own reports (the scientific reports, not the “summary for policymakers” bullshit), politicized as they are and biased as they are in favor of propaganda on so-called “climate change,” SAY SO.

So, not only impossible to establish that any given “disaster” is “entirely man made,” but it is impossible to establish that “man” had anything at all to do with any such disaster, beyond stupid development practices and stupid (and ironically, mostly “eco-nazi” driven) forest and vegetation management practices.

And “climate change” does not have an “era.” The only thing “constant” about the Earth’s climate IS CHANGE.

And Houston did NOT have two “once in a century” storms in two years. The writer is displaying his ignorance. A “1 in 100 year” storm speaks to the chance that such a storm will happen, EVERY YEAR. Experiencing one this year does not mean another shouldn’t happen for 100 years, as the author infers. In addition, one of those storms didn’t have a massive rainfall total because of the storm’s “strength” or “intensity,” but rather because it got boxed in by other weather fronts and hung over the area for an extended time period. Not exactly one of the “climate armageddon” superstorms of “climate model” lore.

…

“The third obstacle is — how to put it? — human nature. … I have spoken to people who are more exercised by Greta Thunberg’s mannerisms than with the content of her message. They find the fact that a 17-year-old girl is lecturing grown-ups on climate change more grating than the likely extinction of the Great Barrier Reef. We filter what we want to see.”

Yes, an ignorant and exploited child’s lecturing of adults regarding an imaginary “crisis” is far more grating than the also imaginary “extinction” of the Great Barrier Reef. The author obviously “filters” everything through emotion and politics rather than facts and reason.

…

“If we want action, the best response is to talk about the economy. The age of abstract climate change is over. The 2018 fires cost California an estimated $400bn, according to Accuweather. That is more than half the annual US defence budget. …”

If we want to take “action,” the “action” should be to address ACTUAL “problems.” Squandering trillions of dollars chasing our tails to ameliorate an imaginary “crisis” does not “fix” any problems.The cost of California wildfires is a cost of stupid development and forest and vegetation management policies, NOT imaginary human-induced “climate change.” The prescribed “cure” is worse than the “disease” WOULD be if the disease was real. The type of “action” the author supports is akin to demanding amputation of one’s dominant hand because they handle paper and therefore might get a paper cut, the reasoning being the possibility that the hypothetical paper cut MIGHT get infected and thereby pose a grave threat to the person’s health. All while ignoring the ability to react more sanely to such a situation with a disinfectant.

The BBC and several newspapers tried to convince everyone that the big issue for the December 2019 UK general election would be the “climate emergency”. The Greens, Liberal Democrats and Labour all promised to spend eye-watering sums of money to fight climate change.
The result – still only 1 Green MP, a near wipeout for the Lib Dems and the worst election result for Labour since the 1930’s. Proof if you ever needed it that the general British public are not that concerned about climate change or just think there are more pressing ways for the goverment to spend taxpayers money.

From the quoted block of text in the above article attributed to the Financial Times:
“It is impossible to establish that any single disaster is entirely man-made.”

Au contraire. Two unequivocally man-made disasters have occurred within just the last 100 years or so. They were called World War I and World War II.

As for the countering the assertion that “democracies don’t care enough about other people’s problems” and it being “hard for democracies to mobilize public action,” I will just point out that over the last 250 or so years citizens in the United States—along with other democracy-based nations such as Great Britain and Canada—mobilized and managed to take out quite a few pirates, despots and dictators as well as tyrannical, fascist and communist regimes that were cruelly oppressing (even to the point of genocide) and keeping humans in OTHER countries in abject poverty.

You want some hard reality? The world isn’t one big group hug. Stability in any social environment is based around what each member thinks he/she can get away with. Sometimes you find you get along with people and life is win/win. Sometimes you have to watch people and call them out when they try and take advantage. They is how society works from the bottom to the top.

Sometimes you have to take one for the greater good. Sometimes you have to stand up and complain. Sometimes you have to go and speak in short blunt words and sometimes you have to take action. The trick is to make sure you get through life by only ever having to stand up and complain, because once you get to the stage you need to start taking action it takes a LONG time to get back again. That is how society works.

And, if we can be really blunt, if society has to work that way, it is better to make a mess in someone else’s country when you speak your short blunt words then wait for them to come and walk their dirty boots across your front room carpet.

No. That was merely one of the many things he ran on. And wasn’t even at the top of the list. The top of the list was immigration/”building the wall” and jobs/the economy (just look at any speech he gave during the election and compare how much time he spent on each topic, wars in the middle east were a mere fraction of the time he spent on the top of the list topics).

bonbon, do you not realize that democracy-based nations around the world have effectively been in World War III since about 20 years ago? It is generally know as the “Global War on Terrorism”, but it meets the requirements of a being a “world war”. It is asymmetric warfare , without the classical conflict “fronts” and major battles of past world wars, so the global public, by and large, does not appreciate it for what it is.

By your comments, it appears you are saying that the US should withdraw from this war (“Bring the troops home!) and cede victory to the bad guys around the planet . . . with the assumption that this nation will be safe from whatever follows such an action.

2hotel9 – I made a comment on a FB friend’s post regarding Iran a few days ago. It was thus – “We’ve been at war with Iran since 1979. Most of it has been below the surface, only occasionally showing its true self. I was on the USS Berkeley, DDG-15, Kitty Hawk battle group, Persian Gulf 1979-1980. It ain’t over yet.”

When we returned from the states after that cruise I was amazed and impressed by the number of Khomeini targets taped in car windows around San Diego. Nope, it ain’t over yet.

President Trump was explicitly elected to put an end to these forever-wars.

Nope. While that was certainly one of the topics he spoke out on during the campaign, it was not in the top 3 of topics (heck it probably wasn’t even in the top 10) that he was running on. Supreme Court, Border Security, Jobs/economy, Trade deals, repeal and replace Obamacare, Travel ban, “lock her up” , etc were all topics he spent more time discussing, and for which people voted for him for. So to pick a lesser discussed topic and claim it as the “explicit” reason he was elected is pretty far-out there, even for a tin-foil wearing type like yourself bonbon.

Maurice Strong quote as Head of UNEP 1972
‘Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions, particularly in terms of safeguarding the global environment that this transition will require and whose results are often not immediately apparent.’

And from the same ‘Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about’?

James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
Mon 29 Mar 2010
In his first in-depth interview since the theft of UEA emails, the scientist blames inertia and democracy for lack of action

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy”, he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock-climate-change

It would have been 580 million if the sleeping, politically divided giant had not been jolted by Pearl Harbor and the German super weapons had been give more time for full production and further upgrades. Timing and sequence is an overlooked aspect of the arrow of time. The lessons from those branching reality simulations have also been overlooked. Would a minority party President in the White House been able to start lend lease for example or would it have been too provocative.

Because communism has done sooooooooooo well as caretakers of the environment. Just ignore Chernobyl. Or the Baotou toxic lake in China. Or the Aral Sea that was once one of the largest lakes in the world. Or … Do I really need to go on?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_UdqZdFr-w

And if you think the right people in a big government will be better caretakers of the environment, I ask you to research the EPA’s Gold King mine disaster.

Democracy is not a block to climate action, the lack of proper initiatives is.

Anyone capable of educating themselves knows that you only rig data if you have no case without data rigging. Strike One for Climate Bedwetters.

Anyone aged over 25 knows that climate does not stay the same, has never stayed the same, will never stay the same. The claim that ‘climate chaos’ is occurring has no evidentiary back up. It is just typical BBC mumbo jumbo plugging a predetermined line by finding anything they can make a four minute segment about. When did a BBC Greenie go to Verkhoyansk recently? They will not go if cold temperature records do not fit the warming narrative….

Greenies are a bit thick if they think climate change comes before healthy food, clean water and cheap power. The time to plug green puritanism is when Maslow’s lowest hierarchy of needs have been adequately supplied…..

However, at the end of the day, the UK electoral system is no way to determine what the UK thinks about Green Issues. You need a Brexit-style referendum to address that…..

-” Climate scientist Johan Rockström thinks the declaration of a climate emergency is justified.
Rockström (Potsdam Institute Director):
The declaration of a “climate emergency” would make it possible to make really big decisions. …such as making things possible that are necessary but have not been considered realistic.“ –

and P Gosselin comments :
-This reminds in the diction of 24 March 1933, at that time the law was officially called: “Law to remedy the distress of the people and the Reich” and it served to abolish the Republic. Isn’t anyone suspicious?
What fits well here is an action of the solar industry lobby, which has made good business from the alleged climate catastrophe. Whoever criticizes the climate alarmism professionally is considered a troublemaker. So it fits in well with the picture that the Solarenergie Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (Solar Energy Association of Germany) is calling for the punishment of critics on its website. The address of the site is: http://sfv.de/artikel/verharmlosung_der_klimakrise_eine_straftat.htm.

Apparently PIK are calling for :
‘Anyone who plays down or denies the climate catastrophe in a way that is likely to disrupt, disparage or completely prevent the defense of the climate catastrophe under the Paris Climate Convention and its follow-up agreements will be punished with a fine of up to 300 days wages. In case of recurrence, the penalty is imprisonment.’

However, to be fair to PIK, they point out that these measures, which possibly may seem disproportionate to many fairminded people outside Germany are actually quite acceptable according to German law:

-“Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”-

The TV reporters in my general area were saying at first that 15 billion species had been destroyed by the bush fires in Australia. Since it’s unlikely that there are that many species on Earth to begin with, some of them switched “species” to “wildlife”. No reference to the source of any of that, just off the top of someone’s head.

They also said at first that the fire acreage totaled something the size of West Virginia, but have since switched WV out to replace it with Manhattan. Are they living in the same universe I live in? Same planet? Generally speaking WV is considerably larger than Manhattan, by a long shot.

They’re more interested in reporting gun violence anyway, as if it’s the only thing to talk about, so I don’t give them a whole lot of credit. The only good thing they have going for them is their long-term weatherman, who is the best meteorologist -and the most accurate, so far – in the area. And oddly, he never brings up climate change or any of that nonsense.

The reason California suffers from so many wildfires is directly due to the eco freaks who take strong action against any attempt by the government to manage the forests. This results in extensive wood and brush debris which humans are forbidden to scavenge. So, they become a tinderbox and any time a lightning strike hits, or someone is careless with a cigarette or match…. off we go. They love to blame any disaster on global warming.

Carbon dioxide is unlikely to be the cause of significant warming…. and don’t forget the law of diminishing returns. Further increases to the CO2 content is less and less effective at increasing warming.

Memories of the ecological mess that was the Soviet Union, is all you need to be reminded that democracies and free people are much better suited to deal with climate change than their socialist counter parts.

From a book review in the current American Scientist with “A path to change–How can climate data be turned into widespread action” highlighted on the cover. So far I have not found any climate evidence therein.

“First, we have to give up on the idea that we live in a free ‘marketplace of ideas’ that allows only the best to prevail. Information has to be regulated to make sure that it conforms to the facts. Second, human beings are too vulnerable to manipulation by misinformation to be able to sustain a democracy. Democracy may be a moral imperative, but we need institutions that allow us to make decisions based on evidence rather than ignorance.”

He is correct, which is why we have a republic with democratic principles, which reviewer apparently does not understand. Also that he may be one of the wolves voting to decide on which sheep for supper? Happens rhetorically to minorities in academia.

We are not far off from the nights of fire and rampage by urban mobs against ICE cars parked on the street and against single family homes as elitist dwellings. Give them some time and organizing efforts and they will get it done. Watch the armbands and little green books waved in the air.

Let’s face it, authoritarian regimes are better at negotiating international agreements that cost nothing (heads they win, tails you lose Chamberlain style), rigging fake elections, rigging fake compliance and enforcement, and controlling public discourse at all levels. They are still working on thought control with brain wave analysis at this point.

The funniest thing is the fact that the Chinese Communists continue to use fossil fuels for their energy needs, while pursuing the development of new advanced nuclear technologies, such as Molten Salt Reactors… Apparently they – the Chinese Communists – pay «lip service» to the «main stream» narrative of «global warming a.k.a. «climate change», but continue in their merry pursuit of greater wealth for them all…
Really, really, funny how the meaning of words such as «democracy» have been twisted over the last two centuries.

Aral Sea.
One would think that that testament to central planning and good intentions,should act as a cautionary tale for those in love with Dictatorial Power.
However I do concede that thinking is an act of heresy within the Cult of Calamitous Climate.

In the comments column of this article in the FT I just came across a fascinating parallel case in terms of how pursuing one idea (say CO2 = CAGW) distorts research funding and pretty much forces group-think.

In this case the issue was the utter failure of Alzheimer’s research to fund anything that didn’t include “Amelyoid” in the grant applications. Sadly the Amelyoid plaques seem to be a result of brain damage and not the cause. The similarities are obvious.

Firstly when talking about Democraancy and the USA, we should take into consideration the fact that the USA is not a Democrancy but a Republic

Here in Australia we look at the Electorial Collage and realize that its what we call a “Jerrymander.

Here in the State of South Australia we had a Premier Playford who ruled for 26 years. It was made possible by giving the country voter a greater say by having much smaller electorates, thus more members of Parliament.

We were lucky in that he was a very good Premier, who rather than use a car with a driver he drove himself in a battered old utility. Today of course we have a fleet of white cars, all in a State which while vast in size only has just over one million people in it.

Our problem is the fact that a high percentage of City dwellers still t think that all food comes from a supermarket and think that they are well informed about all matters.

There are advantages and disadvantages between a authortarian and a democrancy systeem. The Chinese Three Gorge dams and power generation would not take off in todays Western World. In fact the Hover Dam in the USA and Australians Snowy Hydro electric system would never take off today. T he Tasmanian Greens killed off the mini Snowy like scheme of the Gordon below Franklin scheme, despite all the good resulting from it.

Well either you have a different definition of Jerrymander (we call it Gerrymander here in the states) or else you don’t understand the EC very well or at all. Gerrymander means to manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class. That’s really not an issue with the electoral collage as ultimately the boundaries don’t change, being that the boundaries are the individual states themselves. California’s boundaries, for example, are the same today as they were when the state first entered the Union. What’s changed in the number of people that live there (which affects how many EC votes the state gets), but that’s not an issue of manipulating boundaries since the boundaries of the states don’t change.

$400bn represents about 2% of the US GDP in 2018 (20494.10bn) while the annual cost of the GND may be up to an estimated $9000bn, in any case an order of magnitude greater than the purported cost of the fires.

If it wasn’t for democracy allowing inner city latte sucking sops a public voice the people who actually live and work in the Australian bush would have been allowed to undertake their fuel management programmes in peace.

Bushfires in Australia are largely unavoidable. What can be controlled is the potential intensity.

I subscribed to the FT for over 30 years. In the UK, I used to get the printed pink paper. Later, I got the online version. Some of my letters were published many years ago. Sadly, the newspaper changed its policies. Zionists were given the task of writing articles about the Middle East! How crazy can you get?

Very occasionally, I wrote a letter online and it was published. Almost immediately, I got a rebuttal by someone with a false name. Eventually, the coin dropped that the person criticizing my point of view was the writer of the article himself. A gentleman with a Jewish name – Gideon Rachman. I called him out on it and he blocked my letters to the editor.

I cancelled my subscription years ago. All the financial advice they give is false. They tell you what those who control the central banks – they are a clique – wish you to think. It is a good way of losing your money rather quickly. I trust the Martin Armstrong Blog in these matters.

Well, once again I cheated: I read the entire FT article and found all the so-called problems impeding democratically-governed nations acting (allegedly) to arrest climate change boil down to entirely rational responses from people questioning whether those actions can be expected to deliver any benefit.

It’s easier to understand why something so ineffectual would find print if you begin with the assumption that the author probably dislikes the concept of democratic government in the first place, and “climate change” presents an opportune vehicle for finding fault with it–and the implicit invitation to adopt authoritarianism in its place.

As many have said before, the crises come and go, but the supposed remedy is invariably the same…

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy